BOXING NEWS IS A DISGRACE...

[Deserter]

Firstly, apologies if this has already been touched on elsewhere, but I've just got back from holiday and only got a chance to look at BN yesterday... only to see that yet again the magazine that is meant to represent the views of its readers and to champion their interests has completely and utterly bottled it when it comes to the Khan PPV.
To add insult to injury the same issue contains an interview with allegedly that completely avoids any tough questions and instead reads like a PR piece. Now I don't count myself among the number who view Mr Warren as the 'Anti-Christ', I happen to think he's a brilliant businessman who in many respects has done a lot for boxing in this country, but nonetheless if you're given a rare audience with the man himself you simply aren't doing your job if you don't ask probing questions which readers want and demand answers to, whether that's issues like PPV or 'padding' fighters' records.
I praised BN for tackling the serious issues with Bruno, but it appears that when it's come to an individual who can 'hit back' through withdrawing commercial support for the title, Claude and co have opted to sacrifice their integrity instead. May they hang their collective heads in shame...

[TerribleTerry]

I am with you on this Deseter; BN have b0llocks the size of peanuts these days I am afraid.. They won't/can't afford to upset SN it would appear.

SN/Warren have done alot for boxing in terms of delivering big fights and developing household names over the years, not to mention breaking the cartel in their early days.

That said, they should be taken to taken to task over this latest PPV nonsence and it seems BN no longer have the teeth to do it.

Mullan would never have delivered that 'puff piece'.

[twenty six]

Absolutely right Deserter.
Maybe Boxing News needs some Northern blood on the payroll, with balls.
I say this having formally acknowledged that Wazza is the best in the UK.
The question is simple for me - How would Claude & Co reacted if this scenario had been played out by Hennessey, Maloney, Hearn, Hobson or Hayemaker ?
I'll tell you how - by granting Wazza column inches to slaughter them, that's how.

[dondada]

Staggering. They gave no view at all on the PPV and accompanied it with a completely uncritical six-page puff on Warren.

The 'trade paper'? Hmmm. What a shame.

[DavidPayne]

I'm a little less black and white on this.

On the issue of padding....do we really anticipate Warren becoming a convert and deciding/admitting what he's done all these years is a crock?

Come on, its a perspective thing. As fans we disagree with it, as a businessman it makes perfect sense. And you'd have to say, in Hatton's case, within say 1-2 fights he got his career spot on if judged against his own criteria.

1 - Make money.
2 - Minimise risk.

Fans work on

1 - Risky fights
2 - Entertaining fights.
3 - Cheap tickets.

On the PPV issue, that should have been pushed pretty hard because its topical and fresh.

[jimglen]

limp wristed and regurgitation is all we ever get...
in 3 years I can't tell you how many hi-lights I seen about Terry Downs for example...

Did you know that in all it's history British Boxing has only had a 'handful' of greats, Yeah Right!!!

the sad thing is that their inferiority complex actually steals away from the sport and it's pedigree and they think that by giving us Over & Over & Over again the same champions, it'll spark the interest and revive the sport.

Get OFF your foolish pride Britain (BOXING personel) & and gives us ALL of our Greats & Hero's, WE HAVE LITERALLY DOZENS OF THEM!!!

and watch that build the interest - like other nations do!

[twenty six]

Fair comment Dave but I'm only interested in this PPV fiasco.
As a journalist, do you accept what I have said, had the banner name been another promotor ?
Why have the majority of you got no balls when it comes to reporting on the worthy one ?

[dondada]

I'm a little less black and white on this.

On the issue of padding....do we really anticipate Warren becoming a convert and deciding/admitting what he's done all these years is a crock?

Come on, its a perspective thing. As fans we disagree with it, as a businessman it makes perfect sense. And you'd have to say, in Hatton's case, within say 1-2 fights he got his career spot on if judged against his own criteria.

1 - Make money.
2 - Minimise risk.

Fans work on

1 - Risky fights
2 - Entertaining fights.
3 - Cheap tickets.

On the PPV issue, that should have been pushed pretty hard because its topical and fresh.

When the f*ck do FANS (who buy the paper) care about 'the business'? Fans love THE SPORT and it's up to the likes of BN to try and uphold its integrity. Fans do not have the same agenda as promoters.

It's their duty (on behalf of the fans who buy the thing) to at least ask the questions (as young Danny Flexen did to Bruno).

[steve689]

I haven't read the offending article as yet but who wrote it, just out of interest?

[DavidPayne]

Well the fans should focus on not caving in and buying PPV for shyte or turning up to watch fights when they didn't know who the opponent would be until after they bought their tickets rather than thinking a direct question or two may resolve their issues.

I know fans dont care about business Ian. I'm justing saying, fans can bleat all they like, but they're working on an agenda almost entirely contrary to Warren. The only way to affect that agenda is not to watch, not to attend. And in the hands of fans Hatton would have been mauled in 2 rounds by Kostya Tszyu in 2001, I was making the point on padding a record. Can you really argue he got it wrong there?

BN hasn't been an force for change or the fans for some considerable time and in Warren's case are dealing with a subject more than willing to use legal means on everything and they lack the means to be distracted by or to fund a stream of cases. So they do, to a large degree, conform.

Harry Mullan was the last of a different breed and a different era, in a world with so many news outlets, the BN is no longer either the authority it once was or the principle method of reaching fans. It just isn't as important, and as such has to sacrifice elements of its 'trade' paper grit and sensibilities to maintain relationships.

On 26's point, there may have been a different tone had these issues been with Hennessy for example, and I think that reflects positively on MH as well as BN. MH not SN always insist on seeing interviews before publication and strongly suggest self-serving edits however.

Would we still respect the publication if they submitted fight reports on SN shows from sofaside?

[Deserter]

I'm a little less black and white on this.

On the issue of padding....do we really anticipate Warren becoming a convert and deciding/admitting what he's done all these years is a crock?

Come on, its a perspective thing. As fans we disagree with it, as a businessman it makes perfect sense. And you'd have to say, in Hatton's case, within say 1-2 fights he got his career spot on if judged against his own criteria.

1 - Make money.
2 - Minimise risk.

Fans work on

1 - Risky fights
2 - Entertaining fights.
3 - Cheap tickets.

On the PPV issue, that should have been pushed pretty hard because its topical and fresh.

When the f*ck do FANS (who buy the paper) care about 'the business'? Fans love THE SPORT and it's up to the likes of BN to try and uphold its integrity. Fans do not have the same agenda as promoters.

It's their duty (on behalf of the fans who buy the thing) to at least ask the questions (as young Danny Flexen did to Bruno).

Exactly right. BN had an exclusive interview with the biggest person in British boxing and yet failed to ask the sort of questions that have been on everyone's lips for the past decade - in journalistic terms that is the ultimate dropping of the ball. It's like getting a one-on-one with Gordon Brown and deciding to quiz him about our Olympics success rather than the state of the economy.

[Deserter]

Would we still respect the publication if they submitted fight reports on SN shows from sofaside?

I'd respect them more if it meant an objective report from sofaside rather than a prejudiced one from ringside, and strongly suspect I wouldn't be alone in that view.

[Deserter]

I haven't read the offending article as yet but who wrote it, just out of interest?

Tris Dixon.

[DavidPayne]

The questions may well have been asked.

Look, like everyone, I can see Warren appears to have had an easy, cosy chat here and I was bored that Marsh/shooting thing was revisited - there is no new angle to find there I feel.

I just have some sympathy for the terms of reference BN were probably beholden too.

[steve689]

Would we still respect the publication if they submitted fight reports on SN shows from sofaside?

I'd respect them more if it meant an objective report from sofaside rather than a prejudiced one from ringside, and strongly suspect I wouldn't be alone in that view.

Surely (and I say this tentatively) Boxing News could be slightly more provocative without running the risk of being banned from SN shows?? Banning ringside reports from the biggest and most recognisable weekly running Boxing trade paper would be a huge statement if it happened.

[Wales]

And you'd have to say, in Hatton's case, within say 1-2 fights he got his career spot on if judged against his own criteria.
.

I was talking with Emerson about this on the weekend. Warren pretty much got Hattons career path bang on the money. A year or 18 months either way against tszyu and Hatton may have lost, or Tszyu would have in the interim.

As for the Khan PPV, I've decided to take a stand and wont be buying it. Does one buy make a difference? Probably not.

[DavidPayne]

If we all stand together brother.

Unless Arthur was facing Barrera and Khan was facing Pacman on the same bill, it would never merit 14.99 or even 9.99.

PPV for Khan is an absolute piss take.

[Poncey]

I know fans dont care about business Ian. I'm justing saying, fans can bleat all they like, but they're working on an agenda almost entirely contrary to Warren. The only way to affect that agenda is not to watch, not to attend. And in the hands of fans Hatton would have been mauled in 2 rounds by Kostya Tszyu in 2001, I was making the point on padding a record. Can you really argue he got it wrong there?

I think that's a slight exaggeration. "The fans" merely want to see Khan in a competitive fight (I'd pay £14.99 to see Khan v Murray), however most see this as a double punch in the tits because:

a) Khan hasn't even won the Domestic title, yet he's on PPV (and SKY are stating on the advert that he's joing the Legends that have appeared on SKY before)
b) Yet again he's didged quality domestic opposition.

I was going to go to the MEN show, not now. And I'm not buying the PPV, nor am I going to someone's house to watch it. Fck 'em. Instead I'll watch Christie v Watson and Benn v Watson on endless loops remembering how domestic fighters used to be managed.

Anyone who gets the PPV it should be embarassed, because you're merely giving SN reason to consider PPV as a means for future bouts.

[Deserter]

The questions may well have been asked.

Look, like everyone, I can see Warren appears to have had an easy, cosy chat here and I was bored that Marsh/shooting thing was revisited - there is no new angle to find there I feel.

I just have some sympathy for the terms of reference BN were probably beholden too.

But given those circumstances (and I find them perfectly plausible) I'd argue that it's therefore impossible to justify that amount of space for the interview/PR piece due both to the fact it subsequently offers limited value to the reader and as a point of journalistic principle.
Before even reaching that stage I'd have looked to do one of two things:

1) Refuse to do the interview within those parameters and carry an article explaining to readers why even though you want to interview the biggest figure in British boxing, you're not able to.

2) Seek a creative way around the parameters e.g. get him to agree to answer questions submitted by readers. See Haymarket's 4-4-2 for a great example of how effective this can be.

[lowersmiths]

perhaps the interview was conducted before the Khan PPV was unveiled.
I would think a lot of these features were conducted well in advance to make sure there was something to fill the pages during the off-season

[chesh]

The promoter should take some criticism and, hopefully, the box office receipts will show that making this event PPV has been a gross error of judgement. However, an equal or greater share of the blame should be apportioned to Sky who are the "enabler" in this sorry affair. They should have made their offer for Khan's fights on regular Sky Sports and said "take it or leave it" and not provided a box office option from which, I would guess, they - as well as the promoter and boxer - will also profit.

In some ways, you cannot blame the promoter or boxer for trying to maximise their profits. Sky charging an additional 15 quid to subscribers who already pay them about 500 quid a year is another matter, though. Perhaps BN could arrange an interview with Vic Wakeling and ask him how Sky can possibly justify this "double dipping" into the pockets of their customers.

[dbflex]

I feel it's time for someone from BN (namely me) to step into the fray, although I must say up front that I won't be going back and forth over this all week (I'd quite enjoy it, personally, but we are incredibly busy).
Just to say that as regards the Warren piece, at the time the interview was conducted Tris had no idea that the Khan bill would be on PPV. This had not been confirmed at the time. The piece itself, I thought was fairly even-handed but as it was mainly an interview with the subject, who we featured to coincide with his Hall of Fame induction, it is going to be a little one-sided. You'd likely have felt the Bruno piece was overly pro-Bruno if he'd been more cooperative, as it would have contained him telling his story more or less in his own words.
As for BN not having balls or not supporting causes, I should remind everyone of the anti Kevin McIntyre being stripped piece, the South African boxing death we have covered extensively recently and the criticism we have written over many of Khan's past opponents.
While I take your points, I cannot see that we are 'soft' on SN. Yes, the bill is ludicrously overpriced but, from top to bottom, is it that much worse than other shows we've had to pay for. And I do mean 'We' as I will be in Nottingham the night before, not at the MEN.
Constructive criticism is always appreciated (as is praise of course) but to lead the topic with Boxing News is a Disgrace is a bit harsh. We try to reflect what our readers want but when we do get it wrong (and it's inevitable we will at some stage), it's never because we favour or are scared of certain people or groups. You can criticise our views but not our integrity.
Oh, and you can always email me with any and all constructive criticism by the way, as I don't come on here often enough.

Danny

[don't call it a comeback]

I'm a little less black and white on this.

On the issue of padding....do we really anticipate Warren becoming a convert and deciding/admitting what he's done all these years is a crock?

Come on, its a perspective thing. As fans we disagree with it, as a businessman it makes perfect sense. And you'd have to say, in Hatton's case, within say 1-2 fights he got his career spot on if judged against his own criteria.

1 - Make money.
2 - Minimise risk.

Fans work on

1 - Risky fights
2 - Entertaining fights.
3 - Cheap tickets.

On the PPV issue, that should have been pushed pretty hard because its topical and fresh.

When the f*ck do FANS (who buy the paper) care about 'the business'? Fans love THE SPORT and it's up to the likes of BN to try and uphold its integrity. Fans do not have the same agenda as promoters.

It's their duty (on behalf of the fans who buy the thing) to at least ask the questions (as young Danny Flexen did to Bruno).

Exactly right. BN had an exclusive interview with the biggest person in British boxing and yet failed to ask the sort of questions that have been on everyone's lips for the past decade - in journalistic terms that is the ultimate dropping of the ball. It's like getting a one-on-one with Gordon Brown and deciding to quiz him about our Olympics success rather than the state of the economy.

Hmm the reason they get the exclusive with one of the most sensitive businessmen in the UK is precisely because they don't ask the questions on everyone's lips.

Imagine the Sunday Times interviewing Terry Leahy of Tesco and not asking him about a loss of £1.2m in the last filed accounts of his company and what that means for his plans going forward.

[Twinkle Toes]

Boxing news bottled it, of that there is no doubt - But so have pretty much all the top boxing journalists.

The piece on britishboxing.net wasn't exactly scathing, in fact it was rather tame.

What rankles me with boxing news this week, is that their star letter was in regards to the cost of following boxing - Which to me indicates that the team over at BN already do believe boxing is too expensive to follow.

If so, then why an editorial that totally negated having an opinion on the Khan fight being a PPV event?

Piss poor form from the so called trade paper.

[DavidPayne]

Interesting words from Flex.

I'm trying to think of a PPV with a weaker headliner here in the UK?

I can't do it.

But for those that went for the jugular. It seems the PPV wasn't, at that point an issue, of course it could have been revisited once announced and fed in to the piece I suppose...